Nonsense every night now: Rachel Maddow continued her cry for help on last night’s eponymous program.
Rather plainly, Maddow has decided to use “our friends at Fox News” as a nightly punching bag. Leaving aside the rest of last evening’s nonsense, let’s examine one part of her opening segment.
Maddow had the same peculiar look on her face she has had for weeks now. In the part of her opening segment shown below, she explained what will happen if the GOP takes control of the Senate.
Note the wild accusations aimed at Fox based on one statement by Chris Wallace—a single statement she had “edited” to hype its exciting effect:
MADDOW (11/3/14): President Obama has said that, after the election, he will take executive action without Congress on the issue of immigration. If you want to know what else is going to happen, right, if history is right and the Republicans have a great day tomorrow, if you want to know what else that is going to mean in your life and in our political life as a nation, our friends at Fox News are already so excited about the prospect of President Obama acting on the issue of immigration that they have started planning out loud for what they are going to do in response.To watch the full segment, click this.
What they are going to do in Congress if Republicans get control of both Houses of Congress starting tomorrow and then President Obama acts without them. They are already talking about what they are going to do in response.
I don’t want to give it away, but its initials are “impeachment.” They are already talking about impeachment:
WALLACE (videotape): The White House has basically said he’s going to, right after the election, the mid-terms, he is going to issue an executive action. And there’s talk, there was this big story in the Wall Street Journal this weekend, that he might take action that would delay deportation—in effect, give a permanent path, not to citizenship but legalization, to up to 4 million people.
I promise you, if he does that, if he by executive action goes against Congress and legalizes 4 million people who are in this country illegally, there is going to be a firestorm on Capitol Hill. You’re going to see calls for impeachment. (End of videotape)
MADDOW: Impeachment. They’re already calling for it. They’re already planning on it.
TONY PERKINS, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL (audiotape): If the Republicans do capture the Senate, there’s no more excuses about impeachment. See, what we’ve heard so far is why we can’t do that because we would never get it through the Senate—the House could impeach him but the Senate would never convict. They would never—it would just be a waste of time.
Well, if they have control of the Senate, it won’t be. So we’ll see how they deal with this post-election if they happen to win the control of the Senate. (End of audiotape)
MADDOW: That’s Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council, a social conservative group.
Over at World Net Daily, your source for “Where’s the birth certificate” t-shirts and bumper stickers, it’s our old friend at World Net Daily, Tom Tancredo, banging the drum for impeachment there as well. Quote, "Given the likely new political circumstances post-November 4th, impeachment is no longer impractical.”
So on Fox News, on right-wing talk radio and the conservative blog world, they’ve already got it in motion as best as they can. Tomorrow, they take the Senate. The day after that, they start working toward impeachment.
Maddow presented one lone person from Fox—Chris Wallace, speaking on the mid-day program, Outnumbered. On the basis of that statement, in which Wallace predicts what others will do, Maddow said that “our friends at Fox News are already so excited about the prospect of President Obama acting on the issue of immigration that they have started planning out loud for what they are going to do in response.”
On Fox News, “they’ve already got it in motion as best as they can,” the increasingly crazy TV star said. “Tomorrow, they take the Senate. The day after that, they start working toward impeachment.”
Maddow based her cri de coeur on a single mid-day statement by Wallace. Needless to say, she had “edited” his statement to give his words extra impact:
FULLER TEXT OF WHAT WALLACE SAID (11/3/14): I promise you, if he does that, if he by executive action goes against Congress and legalizes 4 million people who are in this country illegally, there is going to be a firestorm on Capitol Hill. You’re going to see calls for impeachment—I don’t mean that necessarily they’ll do it, but there will be calls for it. You’re going to see lawsuits. There’s going to be howling that he has overstepped his executive authority. It’s going to be a big deal.To watch Wallace’s segment, click here.
Does anyone doubt that Wallace’s predictions are accurate? Of course, since Rachel wanted us to think that that “our friends at Fox” are spoiling for impeachment, she didn’t want you to see the highlighted passage, where Wallace says he only means that there will be calls for impeachment.
As the segment continued, Wallace listened to four Republican script-readers praising the GOP’s glorious efforts. Eventually, he broke in with his next statement:
WALLACE: But I think we’re letting Republicans off the hook here. And one of the reasons that they’re not going to pay a price for this is because, in the key battleground states [this year], Hispanics are not a very large voting bloc. They just aren’t in a lot of these states. The only one where they are is in Colorado.Those are all obvious statements too. Does it sound like Wallace—sorry, like “our friends at Fox”—have actually “started planning out loud” for their glorious drive toward impeachment?
You get to a presidential election and this is the fastest growing voter bloc in America. If you don’t somehow get Hispanics on your side, if you end up losing by 44 points, as Romney did to Obama in 2012, you might not get a Republican president.
Maddow has never had a discernible clue about domestic politics. That said, she’s an excellent salesperson, one who is especially good at the project of selling herself.
In recent weeks, an illness has invaded her TV show. The show is now a loud train wreck, night after night after night.
To our eye, the host of this program doesn’t seem especially well. It’s a shame that no one is in charge at The One True Liberal Channel.
Alas! The IQ of the liberal world falls farther down into the well.
Just for the record: Even if Republicans take the Senate, Perkins’ statement doesn’t make sense. It takes 67 votes to convict a president on an impeachment charge.
Needless to say, Maddow didn’t explain that basic fact. Blunderbuss and hype to the side, she almost never does.
Anti-NYT, check.
ReplyDeleteAnti-academia, check.
Anti-Salon, check.
Anti-Maddow, check.
Another full and productive day for Somerby.
I take it you're a Nu-liberal who believes that list serves your interests well?
DeleteYou take it wrong.
DeleteAnonymous bashing Anonymous. Awesome.
Delete"When you repay me for this ticket I'll tell you where your truck is. If not, you'll eventually find it, but it won't be in one piece."
DeleteThat was a gret story. Maybe not awesome. Close.
Are Somerby's claims correct, accurate and true? CHECK.
DeleteFar more productive day that Maddow's.
Checkmate.
"Rather plainly, Maddow has decided to use “our friends at Fox News” as a nightly punching bag."
ReplyDeleteRather plainly, Somerby has decided to use Maddow as a daily punching bag.
If you don't want Maddow to be a punching bag, get word to her to stop doing what she can be punched for.
DeleteYou obviously read the comment but seem to miss the point, which wasn't Ms. Maddow.
DeleteAnd in case anybody doubts that Fox News has been ginning up impeachment talk for months, here are the partial results of a simple Google search.
ReplyDelete"Judge Jeanine to Pres. Obama: Your 'Dereliction of Duty as Commander-in-Chief Demands Your Impeachment" Fox Nation Blog, May 5.
Jedediah Bila on Fox News "Outnumbered," Aug. 4: “I think everyone’s afraid to point out this impeachment issue when it comes to President Obama because everyone thinks it’s totally unrealistic, but the truth is we now have a president that’s not enforcing the law. He’s not enforcing the immigration law. He is getting up every day and deciding which components of this law he thinks should be enforced and which ones shouldn’t. I mean you’re talking about executive amnesty towards millions of people. So if you’re going to talk about who’s forcing the impeachment issue this president is forcing that issue. He’s forcing us to bring that up because he refuses to enforce the laws as they stand.”
Fox News "legal analyst" Andrew Napolitano: “If the Republicans take the Senate, you’ll see the ‘I’ word – impeachment – be banded about."
Fox News "contributor" Sarah Palin on the Fox News Web site, July 11: "The case for Obama’s impeachment: The Constitution’s remedy for a lawless, imperial president", This followed her appearance on Hannity's show in which she proclaimed, "The tipping point on this whole impeachment drive for me has been the immigration issue."
Fox News Web site Aug. 3, following his appearance on Fox News Sunday: "Rep. King reignites impeachment debate, White House unconvinced House has dropped the issue"
Fox News' Andrea Tantaros, "Outnumbered", July 30: "I think President Obama is baiting Republicans with impeachment so he could set the stage to actually do something worthy of impeachment."
Now all you need to do is link to Republicans in Congress who are calling for Obama's impeachment. VP Biden is the fail safe against even a passing suggestion of impeachment proceedings for the next two years. Even if Obama orders the boarder patrol to admit any and all comers, he will serve out his 2nd term.
Delete"House Speaker John Boehner is not on board with Sarah Palin’s recent call to impeach President Obama.
When asked Wednesday by NBC News what he thought about the failed vice presidential nominee and half-term Alaska governor’s demand that Congress remove Obama from office, the Ohio Republican said, “I disagree.”
MSNBC's Michael Eric Dyson once signed a petition calling for George Bush to be “driven from office.” Is it possible the same liberals who demonize FNC pundits for mentioning impeachment championed Dyson's Bush 43 impeachment rants?
I see. The entire right wing strives to act like the biggest idiots on the left.
DeleteImpeccable logic.
Of course, you forget that even before the lefty impeachment talk against Bush even began to sprout, Nancy Pelosi herself nipped it well before the bud stage.
Of course, she had a better set of cajones than the wimpy Boehner who is without question the weakest and least competent Speaker in history. Can't even begin to control his own nutcases.
And Eric Holder takes the prize for most venal attorney general in U.S. history and that is no easy achievement.
DeleteHere is what Pelosi actually said regarding Bush 43 impeachment. Hardly a rejection of the possibility of impeachment proceedings against Bush 43.
How is a remark by S.P. considered the "entire right wing"? Thanks for the hyperbole.
PELOSI: "There’s an agenda that you have to get done, that you have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The president has to sign it. If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story. "
http://www.democrats.com/pelosi-would-impeach-bush-if-she-had-the-goods
Cicero: what does any of that have to do with Maddow's dishonesty? Nothing. Fox talking about impeachment is speculative; Maddow's obvious dishonesty is a fact.
DeleteMaddow's history of prevarications is not news. They date back to 2009 when she erroneously claimed that during the post WWII Tokyo Trials, Japanese soldiers were hanged for waterboarding allied prisoners.
DeletePoor Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for Madcow, nobody's hearing her rants. They're all watching Fox News.
ReplyDeleteAll?
DeleteYou add up the viewership of Fox, MSNBC and CNN on any given night and it falls far short of 1 percent of the population of the country.
You forget 5:32, Chris Matthews used to be a lot more influential. His hard work killed thousands if not millions of Iraqis. And almost got some American guy killed.
DeleteAlso, Bob's watching Rach and charting the number of peculiar looks on her face.
DeleteTrue that FNC beast the other cable channels combined in the ratings. But if their viewership pales in comparison to the U.S. population, you would never guess from the liberal paroxysms about the existence of FNC and their impact on pop culture and politics.
Deletecicero, a dung beetle spending his whole life in a pile of warm horseshit thinks the most prevalent and important substance in the universe is warm horseshit.
DeleteYou laugh, but it's winning Congress.
Delete6:22, I bet Jack Welch feels he got his money's worth, Matthews was in essence a top paid Republican tool who earned his keep. Now he calls himself a "journalist".
Delete@Anonymous 7:52
DeleteAre you calling Rachel Maddow a dung beetle?
Did you call FNC a beast?
Deletecicero,
DeleteWhere's that list of ideological differences between the GOP and the Tea Party?
I'm sure there are plenty of them (or at least one), since you seem to think they're completely different, despite the fact they are the same people, with the same funding, and the same failed ideology.
Berto
If they are the same people....with the same "failed" ideology......how is it the GOP won so many gubernatorial races and picked up 8 new seats in the Senate? If that is failure, what do you consider success?
DeleteThe election was a success. Their ideology realized is where you see the failure.
DeleteIn the meantime: What are those ideological differences, again?
Lett's not belabor this, if you can't find any,just apologize for saying I was wrong when I was right.
Berto
There hasn't been a GOP POTUS since the 2009 creation of the Tea Party. When or where has this Tea Party influenced ideology been realized? If there were no differences between the two, why would the Tea Party have formed? They would be superfluous.
DeleteDifferences:
Republicans believe in limited government, but attacked Tea Party calling for the abolition of federal agencies as out of the mainstream.
Tea Partiers have called for privatizing Social Security. A nonstarter among Republicans in Congress.
Tea Partiers want to balance the budget, Republicans have been running up the deficit when they were in power.
Aha.
DeleteSo, Republicans may have run on balanced budgets, but have been running up the deficit when they were in power.
Republicans believe in limited government, but attacked Tea Party calling for the abolition of federal agencies as out of the mainstream.
Sounds like you think that all the Republicans talk about being fiscally responsibility is nothing but 100% Grade A bullshit. Congratulations, liberals have been saying that since 1984. And here I was thinking you were slow on the uptake.
I look forward to 2027, when you realize Republicans never really cared about small businesses.
Berto
" If there were no differences between the two, why would the Tea Party have formed? They would be superfluous. "
DeleteWhy? Because after GWB ran the country into the ground, admitting you were a Republican was toxic. It's for the same reason Nazis shed their uniforms as they ran from the battlefields at the end of WWII: they didn't want to be blamed for the disasters they supported, so they made believe they were something different.
The real question is why did the media buy into it.
Berto
cicero,
DeleteDoes the Tea Party believe in small government, or do they just say they believe in small government?
I haven't met one that doesn't want us to war with ISIS. There is nothing small government about war.
So basically they talk out both sides of their mouths. That's nothing like the Republicans. (snark).
@Berto
DeleteWhen you invoke Nazis you have abdicated any rational argument.
Tuesday utterly refutes your bizarre explanation for the Tea Party. Republicans trounced Dems in the Senate, Congress, and gubernatorial races. Even the darling of the libs Sandra Fluke nose dived and she ran against another liberal. with zero name recognition.
The lame stream media only buys liberal propaganda. Whatever your hang up is with the Tea Party you might wish to seek professional help. .
@Anonymous 8:43
DeleteI do not know of any conservative who doesn't believe the primary function of the federal government is to insure the existence and support of a powerful military. You must be channeling Libertarians.
"I do not know of any conservative who doesn't believe the primary function of the federal government is to insure the existence and support of a powerful military... "
DeleteNor do you know one who really believes in limited government.
"Whatever your hang up is with the Tea Party you might wish to seek professional help."
DeleteNo hang-up. Just pointing out they are still the Republican party.
"The lame stream media only buys liberal propaganda."
Corporations don't need to buy liberal propaganda. Corporations are already liberal.
Berto
@Berto
DeleteThe Obama Administration, the sellers of the propaganda, is a corporation? Ok.
Correction: The Tea Party is a segment of the GOP, they are not the GOP.
Unless you wish to concede that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), unabashed Socialist, represents the entire Democratic Party.
@Anonymous 2:40
DeleteIt used to be liberals who also wanted big brother out of their lives. It is hysterical watching liberals manically walking in lock step with the Power. They can't get enough of "The Man" in their lives. Now it is the conservatives who are the counter culture.
Please big government (Daddy Obama), save us from ISIS and Ebola.
DeleteConservatives love the nanny state.
cicero,
DeleteHow exactly is war a small government program?
"It is hysterical watching liberals manically walking in lock step with the Power."
DeleteFunnier than conservatives criticizing the President for not being enough of a nanny-stater?
"The Tea Party is a segment of the GOP, they are not the GOP. "
DeleteThere are plenty of differences between these segments. So many that no one can name any.
Berto
@Berto
DeleteIgnoring the differences I chronicled is not a persuasive argument and neither is repeating the same debunked assertion.
Why are libs on here proffering the absurd argument that having a strong military and implementing it is considered antithetical to conservative principles?
DeleteObama decided he needed a political hack as an Ebola Czar, not conservatives. We know this because Obama is loath to listen to anything suggested by the GOP. Klain has not been seen since his unveiling.
Good to know that liberals do not want the U.S. military to engage ISIS anywhere and would prefer conservatives to rely on the 2nd Amendment to protect Americans from Islamic Fundamentalists like Major Nidal Malik Hasan.
How are libs reacting to POTUS Obama re invading Iraq with U.S. ground combat troops?
"Why are libs on here proffering the absurd argument that having a strong military and implementing it is considered antithetical to conservative principles?
DeleteWar is a big government program, and "small government" is a conservative mantra.
The real question is, why would anyone believe conservatives are small government, fiscal conservatives?
They aren't for "small government". They're for "exclusive government". One that excludes government support for "those types".
"Ignoring the differences I chronicled is not a persuasive argument and neither is repeating the same debunked assertion. "
DeleteWhat differences? That Republicans run on small government, yet are really big spenders, while those who call themselves the Tea Party really mean it when they say they're for small government while supporting never-ending war? That doesn't make them different, it makes them exactly the same.
Berto
The sine qua non of Liberalism is a large and intrusive federal government complete with taxation of income at the highest percentage possible.
DeleteIf the left considers going to war in harmony with their big government pursuits, why would liberals recoil from the Iraq War? Or could it be that liberals only invoke this notion that U.S. security (i.e., the maintenance and deployment of the all volunteer military) is a hallmark of the intrusive "big government" in a desperate attempt to claim conservatives are for expanding the Washington D.C. bureaucratic control over the civilian population.
We get it. Making believe your against big, intrusive government is a hallmark of modern conservatives. Right up until defense contractors demand the Treasury, the DEA needs to fund a drug war, or the superstitious tell Teri Schiavo's husband what to do.
DeleteThe Republican Party and the Tea Party. Exactly the same.
Big government conservatives.
Berto
"Ignoring the differences I chronicled is not a persuasive argument and neither is repeating the same debunked assertion."
DeleteBecause liberals aren't making believe they are small government minded. That's the fairy tale conservatives tell themselves.
DeleteWe hold these truths to be self evident. Liberals love war because it is intrinsically linked to the survival of big government and Bernie Sanders Socialism represents the Democratic Party.
"Could A Socialist Senator Become A National Brand"
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/10/330193246/could-a-socialist-senator-become-a-national-brand.
"Bernie Sanders Socialism represents the Democratic Party."
DeleteNo partisanship here. I share that dream.
Berto
Conservatives mission is to prevent that nightmare from being realized. You can always hope that Germany divides again and you can relive the Socialist lifestyle behind a concrete and concertina wire wall built to keep the citizens .from fleeing to the capitalistic west.
Deletecicero,
DeleteI'm starting to get it. The Republican Party SAYS they're for small government, but in reality they are big government spenders. Meanwhile, the Tea Party claims to be REALLY small government and fiscally conservative, but in reality support big spending government programs like war and government intrusions on women's choice.
I can't believe I was so blind to the differences. All this time it was the spelling differences between the Tea Party and Republican Party. Ooh, there's another difference; tea party only has 8 letters, while republican party has 15. How could I have been so blind?
Berto
"Conservatives mission is to prevent that nightmare from being realized."
DeleteYou mean you claimed something is true that isn't? Is that a trait of the Republican Party or the Tea Party? They're such opposites, it's hard to tell. (Lol).
@Berto
DeleteGovernment intrusion on women's choices? That would be the Obama Administration which expects taxpayers to pay for all 26 types of female contraception. You couldn't be speaking about Roe v. Wade as that is precedent and will never be overturned.
You would prefer conservatives to have defunded spending on U.S. military during WWII? In your estimation that would make them devotees of small government if not 5th columnists. Brilliant!
@Anonymous 1:43
DeleteUp until 5 years ago, you reserved your hatred just for Republicans. Now you also hate the Tea Party as well. Have you noticed that it is liberals who are obsessed with the Tea Party who libs simultaneously claim are irrelevant. Why is that?
Explain what it was I claimed was not true? That liberals care about Obama re invading Iraq? You may be right. I haven't heard anything from libs on that subject.
"Up until 5 years ago, you reserved your hatred just for Republicans. Now you also hate the Tea Party as well."
DeleteI'm not hating them, I'm laughing at them.
I see you had no response for this obvious truth:
"We get it. Making believe your against big, intrusive government is a hallmark of modern conservatives. Right up until defense contractors demand the Treasury, the DEA needs to fund a drug war, or the superstitious tell Teri Schiavo's husband what to do."
You keep thinking, this time they mean it. You're naivete is adorable.
Berto
"You would prefer conservatives to have defunded spending on U.S. military during WWII? "
DeleteI would prefer they stopped supporting every war they can send their doorman's kids to fight.
It is an all volunteer military. Has been since 1974. Your preference has come true.
DeleteConservative politicians whose offspring are in the military:
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
(Three sons in military:
Alan is a captain in the Army National Guard served in IRAQ,
Addison is serving in the Navy,
Julian is in the Army National Guard)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
(son, Duane, is a U.S. Marine and Served in IRAQ
Senator Christopher Bond (R - Missouri)
(son, Sam, is in the U.S. Marines and is currently serving in IRAQ.)
Rep. Ike Skelton (R-Missouri)
(has a son serving in Army serving in Iraq
Senator John McCain (R- AZ)
Son is a U.S. Marine serving in Iraq War.
Rep. John Kline, (R-Minn)
(son, Dan, is a Black Hawk Helicopter pilot in the 101st Airborne and serving in IRAQ
Rep. Jim Saxton (D- NJ)
nephew, a Marine rifleman, served in Iraq.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado)
(son, John, serving in the Navy and sent to Iraq)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)
(has a son, Perry, in the Marine Corps who is a combat engineer serving in Iraq.)
Tea Party members with a different ideology than the Republican Party:
DeleteProof God Has No Use for Bob
ReplyDelete"Let’s pray that we’ll be permitted to ignore Rachel Maddow this week."
Bob Somerby. Yesterday! Gack!
He is a wrathful God.
Bob yesterday: "Let’s pray that we’ll be permitted to ignore Rachel Maddow this week." The atheists are right: there is no god. Ooops, by saying that, I just alienated "average voters." Bad me.
ReplyDeleteBob is so hopelessly in the grips of his Maddow obsession that no amount of mockery he's subject to, no number of wrong statements he makes about her will veer him off course, and now her facial expressions, not just her laugh, her smirks, and her smiles, are subject to his obsession. The pathology is approaching clinical.
What happened, I wonder, to his fund raiser? Did he get enough money and stop? Did he decide it was futile and give up? Did someone fund him on the grounds that he keep on his current path of Maddow, Maddow, Maddow? Too bad we'll never know, but the fact that the third option is a possibility ought to tell Bob that he's gone too far. But you might as well tell a heroin addict, needle in arm while living in a cardboard box, that they've gone too far. Rachel Maddow has eaten Bob's brain.
Why are some people talking about impeachment, when it's obviously out of the question? I think it's a way of saying that an Executive Amnesty is an appalling act. Oh, I'm not saying it's necessarily bad policy. But, it violates the social contract. We have a Constitutional government with powers shared among the three branches, and between federal and state. We don't elect the President to be dictator for his term of office.
ReplyDeleteAs a practical matter, a President can assume almost dictatorial powers, and there's little we can do about it. We have to wish that Presidents voluntarily restrict themselves to proper use of their powers. A big Executive Amnesty will be a sad precedent.
Excuse me, but isn't it well within the powers of the president to issue pardons to the worst of convicted criminals?
DeleteAnd didn't Jimmy Carter on his first day in office issue and executive amnesty allowing all those who fled to Canada to avoid the military draft to return home?
That was also considered well within the powers of the president.
In this case, the wingnuts are imagining something Obama might do, then gearing up to impeach him for that. And if not that, like Clinton before him, they'll find something.
And who was the last president that signed a comprehensive immigration reform bill into law that also granted a wide amnesty to "illegal" aliens?
DeleteI think his initials were "R.R."
7:48 -- Yes, Reagan's amnesty took place via a law that was properly passed by Congress. Obama proposes to do the same thing by unilateral decree.
DeleteWhen has Obama proposed any such thing?
DeleteHint: He hasn't. And you should stop listening either to the voices in the right wing echo chamber or the voices inside your head that tells you he has.
Here's another disturbing truth those voices inside your head won't tell you.
DeleteWhile Reagan had absolutely no problem signing a bill that granted amnesty and an easy path to citizenship to millions of undocumented aliens, Obama has been the toughest president to date in terms of securing our southern border and deporting illegals.
And he's the one that's "soft" on illegal immigration.
Boy your right wing nut cases will believe anything those slicksters tell you on Fox, won't you?
Hey 8:18, the idea that Obama has been "the toughest president to date in terms of securing our southern border"
Deleteis the biggest pile of bunk since R. Maddow's last broadcast. maybe you missed the news about the Texas border last summer while floating in your airless lefty bubble.
Build the fence at the Mason-Dixon line.
Delete8:11 PM -- According to ABC, the White House has said Obama will do this, and other executive actions as well.
ReplyDeleteABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jon Karl reported that according to WH officials “the president will move forward with an executive order on immigration reform “no matter how big a shellacking Democrats get tonight” during ABC’s Election coverage on Tuesday.
Karl said “White House officials are saying that you can expect the president to set an aggressive, and defiant tone tomorrow. You're not going to see any mea culpas, no big firings, no change in direction.”
He added “officials tell me the president is prepared to aggressively pursue his agenda using his power of executive authority, where he can't work with Congress, and the big one is going to be on immigration reform. White House officials tell me that the president will move forward with an executive order on immigration reform no matter how big a shellacking Democrats get tonight.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/04/Report-Exec-Amnesty-No-Matter-How-Big-a-Shellacking-For-Dems
Maddow is using scare tactics to get out the vote, much as the right has been doing.
ReplyDeleteIf the left adopts the right's tactics, it's wrong. If the left loses, it's wrong. If the left wins, it's wrong. If the left does anything, it's wrong. If the left does nothing, it's wrong. Welcome to BobVille. Population 1.
DeleteIf the left loses, it is life. If the left pursues its interests in accordance with its values, win or lose it is right.
DeleteLosing isn't a good way of pursuing your values, unless your values are to lose, so you can complain about everything in perpetuity, as Bob does. Bob "seems to" enjoy complaining in perpetuity, but some of us have lives to lead, lives that require a properly functioning government. We won't get it by losing.
DeleteWhat do you win if you must become your opponents in order to win?
DeleteDoesn't really take much effort and deep thinking to play the false equivalency game and come up with "Rachel Maddow is just like Bill O'Reilly" does it?
DeleteShe lies and so does O'Reilly. She is supposed to be a journalist. That excludes lying, regardless ofwhat O'Reilly does.
DeleteSo what is the lie @ 10:31?
DeleteTuesday -- selective editing of a quote to change the meaning = lying by omission.
DeleteSelective editing? You mean like Bob did to Jonathan Capehart and Glenn Kessler? Lying of that sort?
DeleteHow does anything Somerby might do exonerate Maddow from lying in this situation?
DeleteI didn't say it did. So maybe you read my question but you either did not get the point or decided not to answer the question.
DeleteI've been reading Matt Bai's new book on Gary Hart. He attributes Hart's downfall to a change in the mainstream media. Much of what Bai says is the same as what Somerby has been saying here for a long time.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Hart dared the mainstream media to follow him, and the dastardly mainstream media took him up on it.
DeleteRead the book. You'll see why your summary is both ubiquitous and wrong.
DeleteDoes he also blame Rachel Maddow? What does he think of her smirk? Do her facial expressions meet his standards of acceptability?
DeleteNo thank you. I have lots of books on my list besides one that rehashes how Gary Hart went down in flames 27 years ago.
DeleteMust have been the mean press.
Look, I have no doubt that Lee Atwater sicced a private eye on Hart -- and other Democratic Party hopefuls -- to dig up dirt, came up with the affair, and fed that to an eager press corps.
I am also not disqualifying Hart for lying about it the first time. That's what you do when caught in an affair.
But he ceased being presidential timber in my book when he was too stupid to call it off, and even dared the press to follow him around.
And unlike Somerby and his fans who see "what ifs" concerning things that never happened with such crystal ball clarity, I have no idea if Hart would have fared any better against George H.W. than Dukakis did.
I'm not even sure that Hart was a shoo-in in 1987 for the 1988 party nomination.
But you go ahead, finish your book that already reinforces what you already "know" , and pretend that you know more than you possibly can. It's the Bob way.
The book suggests that the same forces that turned media into entertainment and reporters into celebrities made them focus on Hart's personal life, when similar extracurricular behavior had been traditionally ignored before then. A false narrative was created about Hart that people like you are still repeating. Plus Hart alienated the media so they took him down, much as they later did Gore and Clinton (Hillary in 2008).
DeleteThe whole notion of "media into entertainment" long predates 1987 and Gary Hart.
DeleteSo does the notion of the media trafficking in juicy gossip. Go look up Fatty Arbuckle some day.
But go ahead and ignore history and continue to believe that it all began with Gary Hart, Reading one book certainly is a lot easier than thinking deeply.
You don't know what you're talking about.
DeleteYou read a book and you think you know far more than you actually do.
DeleteAnd you probably already had all the answers before you read the book. Typical Somerby pseudo-intellectual.
In general, people who read books know more than those who don't.
DeleteI read a great book once. Called "How He Got There."
DeleteCouldn't put it down until I got to Chapter 7.
In general.
DeleteIn this case, a guy who read one book and thinks its Holy Scripture is making an ass out of himself.
There is a corelation between "All the Truth Is Out" and "How He Got There."
DeleteBoth authors are such fan-boys of their subjects that they sweep aside any nothing that their idols had anything at all to do with their fates.
Nope, it was all a deep, dark media conspiracy.
Should read "they sweep aside any notion . . ."
Delete"Both authors are such fan-boys of their subjects..."
DeleteOn no evidence whatsoever, the douchebag makes this assertion.
But a guy read a book. You didn't read it. So you, like a total douche, dismissively say he's read "one" book.
He thinks there's something to the argument in the book. As you are a douchbag, you say that means he "thinks it's Holy Scripture."
Fucking douchebag troll wantwit.
:Fucking douchebag troll wantwit."
DeleteSuch an intelligent response.
But since you read the book, go check somewhere around Page 250 or so where Bai says that Hart's initial lies about the affair were examples of his high principles and high character.
I will admit I found the book very well written and quite a page turner.
But more than once, I hit passages like that and rolled my eyes.
I bought the book because Gary Hart was one of the great disappointments of my life. Never had I witnessed such hubris, such arrogance, and such stupidity in a candidate that I honestly held such high hopes for, and I bought this book hoping to find evidence that would temper my judgment.
Well, he gave me some, including the private eye who discovered this affair and fed it to a willing press.
But the bottom line is this: Gary Hart was too dumb or too egoistical to keep his pants zipped up for the duration of the campaign, after being told that the press was on it.
And when I finally finished this fawning effort to portray Hart as the victim of an overzealous press focusing on such trivial matters as the character and integrity of a man who would be president, I could only regret the money I spent on this book.
Since you read the book you will know that Hart was recognized as a womanizer. You will also know that the press targeted Hart in ways previous and other contemporary politicians were not targeted. That happened well before he "challenged" them. Hart pissed off the press so they went after him with a "narrative" that he was weird, even before the sex scandal. Hart maintains he never had sex with Rice but he freely admits he had sex with many other women who were not his wife. Why would he deny Rice? Why should he have kept his pants zipped when no one else was -- nor were they being expected to. Bai suggests this fidelity is a new value being imposed on politicians by the 60's generation, partly as a result of feminism. He suggests that character was not defined that way before Hart's problems with the press. Bai does not suggest that press was overzealous but rather differently zealous, because they were 30-somethings from Ivy league schools whose understanding of what was important to elections centered on personality (character) and not political competence. That echoes what Somerby has been saying here for over a decade.
DeleteSince you view this as a white-washing of Hart, you clearly share the values of the press and the current media culture and thus represent what Bai was describing -- a boomer generation out of touch with previous press behavior and political expectations before Hart was crucified. Notice where Bai describes LBJ telling the press that they would see him coming out of women's rooms (who were not his wife) and that such comings and goings were none of their business. THAT is what Hart expected because that is how the press had always behaved previously, including with respect to his own numerous infidelities. That isn't what happened with Rice -- who he claims he did not sleep with.
So, maybe you read the book but it doesn't seem like you got the point of it.
What Bob doesn't seem to fathom is that Maddow isn't news. It's a light, comedic take on the news not at all unlike what Jon Stewart does on his show.
Delete